Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kryten

Canucks: Puck Possession Or Transition Team?

Puck Possession or Transition   39 members have voted

  1. 1. Do the Canucks keep possession of the puck to create offense or do they rely on their transition game to enter the offensive zone?

    • Transition
      21
    • Puck Possession (Powerplay doesn't count obviously)
      18

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

26 posts in this topic

You've just outlined what drives me batshirt crazy about this team's offensive strategy in a way that I would never have been able to articulate.

This strategy gets exposed in series play, as other teams adjust (if it even has the chance to work for a game or two), or, as you mentioned, possess exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck to begin with and nearly sweep us.

The system may win lots of regular season games, which admittedly gives us a chance every season to at least make the playoffs, but compare games won vs games lost in the playoffs in the last 5 years against series won vs series lost. There is bound to be a glaring contrast. The Chicago series and the Cup finals series illustrate the importance of that contrast - you can still win lots of playoff games and come home empty handed. Which, to me, spells out the obvious need for at least a change in game-plan/strategy . . .

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the Canucks are mostly a low risk possession/dump the puck team with an uncoordinated transition mentality.

They like to push the puck up quickly but the players don't always know whether to attack or to pass. That split second indecision leads to a weak attack or just set offense.

With possession they like to try to make the safe plays and mostly keep the puck on the perimeter. At times there are passes that should go to the middle and thats when other teams like to exploit the offense. In the regular season this works ok because teams are more likely to have holes. However in the playoffs bad habits and turnovers lead to great chances the other way.

They should be great at both offensive styles while having better coordination for transition d if they do make turnovers. Right now I just see the Canucks as having many holes in many aspects of their game and no real strategic advantage over playoff teams. I see them as a team that has potential to be better than they are.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way they played their last few games, they didn't at all look like a puck possession team.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't like watching the Canucks play the dump and chase to gain access to the offensive zone because we tend to lose majority of the battles

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I was annoyed that Ehrhoff left (yes I know he was not worth what he wanted). However, Ehrhoff was and probably would still be our best puck-moving D-man, and he, more often than not, broke the team out of the zone successfully. We seriously underestimated his offensive, and, general value. Points is not everything. Ehrhoff did a lot of things our D can't do (ie. puck-moving, puck distribution, getting shots through, consistent PP anchor).

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really struggle to find how we are a transition team when one of our main problems is scoring off of the rush. Look at Philly's offense for example. Almost all of their offense is created off of the rush because they have guys who have speed, high chemistry, high offensive awareness, and they know when to pass or shoot. We've seen flashes of it on our team but our 2nd line especially needs to improve that part of their game. It pains me to watch Kesler and Booth just fire wrist shot after wrist shot in hopes of a lucky bounce or rebound.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, power play should count in your analysis because this team is strictly built for the power play... so i would have to confirm that we would like to be a puck possession team but since we don't have the d that can do that anymore we dump it in most of of the time and we lose the battles quite often .... so we really do have to make changes....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great read, thanks! I think the Nucks define themselves as a 'puck possession' team, you hear the players and Gillis stating it in post game interviews etc etc. I am no expert, but I also agree Canucks are a transition team who rely heavily on special teams - but I think their bread and butter is puck possession.

Unfortunately, they were a bad puck possession team this yr (8th in the league). Here's a good read: http://www.broadstre...ck-nhl-playoffs For a team that relies heavily on puck control, being 8th in the league is all sorts of bad (note: LA was 1st in the league).

I would describe AV as a 'zone matching' vs. a 'line matching' coach. I believe his hard matching zone starts have hurt the Canucks puck possession - most notably for this yr. His zone starts this yr were much more 'extreme' than last yr (take a look at behind the net if you know what I'm talking about). To a large degree, I think it's killed the teams ability to create as many scoring chances and it leads to increased scoring chances against (hence bad puck possession). I think it explains why when they're up a goal they convert into more of a trap system - it's to compensate for the hard matching zone starts.

As you stated, this team relies heavily on special teams. Unfortunately, that is more suited for the reg season vs. the playoffs. We've now seen Boston win a cup with a brutal PP, and LA is following suit. It's part of the reason why I'd like to see a new coach. This team needs a new system, one that doesn't include extreme zone starts or heavy reliance on special teams.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really struggle to find how we are a transition team when one of our main problems is scoring off of the rush. Look at Philly's offense for example. Almost all of their offense is created off of the rush because they have guys who have speed, high chemistry, high offensive awareness, and they know when to pass or shoot. We've seen flashes of it on our team but our 2nd line especially needs to improve that part of their game. It pains me to watch Kesler and Booth just fire wrist shot after wrist shot in hopes of a lucky bounce or rebound.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've just outlined what drives me batshirt crazy about this team's offensive strategy in a way that I would never have been able to articulate.

This strategy gets exposed in series play, as other teams adjust (if it even has the chance to work for a game or two), or, as you mentioned, possess exceptional puck moving skills and an aggressive forecheck to begin with and nearly sweep us.

The system may win lots of regular season games, which admittedly gives us a chance every season to at least make the playoffs, but compare games won vs games lost in the playoffs in the last 5 years against series won vs series lost. There is bound to be a glaring contrast. The Chicago series and the Cup finals series illustrate the importance of that contrast - you can still win lots of playoff games and come home empty handed. Which, to me, spells out the obvious need for at least a change in game-plan/strategy . . .

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great read, thanks! I think the Nucks define themselves as a 'puck possession' team, you hear the players and Gillis stating it in post game interviews etc etc. I am no expert, but I also agree Canucks are a transition team who rely heavily on special teams - but I think their bread and butter is puck possession.

Unfortunately, they were a bad puck possession team this yr (8th in the league). Here's a good read: http://www.broadstre...ck-nhl-playoffs For a team that relies heavily on puck control, being 8th in the league is all sorts of bad (note: LA was 1st in the league).

I would describe AV as a 'zone matching' vs. a 'line matching' coach. I believe his hard matching zone starts have hurt the Canucks puck possession - most notably for this yr. His zone starts this yr were much more 'extreme' than last yr (take a look at behind the net if you know what I'm talking about). To a large degree, I think it's killed the teams ability to create as many scoring chances and it leads to increased scoring chances against (hence bad puck possession). I think it explains why when they're up a goal they convert into more of a trap system - it's to compensate for the hard matching zone starts.

As you stated, this team relies heavily on special teams. Unfortunately, that is more suited for the reg season vs. the playoffs. We've now seen Boston win a cup with a brutal PP, and LA is following suit. It's part of the reason why I'd like to see a new coach. This team needs a new system, one that doesn't include extreme zone starts or heavy reliance on special teams.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's interesting is that on an 'off' year, this team still won the President's trophy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is price of tickets. Because of the organization charges tickets in the high end bracket the game better be entertaining. It's fine to watch at home and beat non playoff teams 1 0, BC as long as the teams winning. But for people who pay 200 for pair of tickets how exciting is a defensive minded team??? I spend so much time just preparing to go to game and leaving a game, those years when first av came in was a snoozer, I hard such hard time selling tickets to games can't go. Saying that if they ever start playing like that I'm just going keep selling off seasons until things change.

I remember near end of season media and bieska were complaining how the crowd were too quiet. I was thinking BC games weren't that entertaining unless you like to cheer being outshot n goalies making the safes. Maybe we can cheer keslerd diving since this a non fighting n big hitting style of the team. Last year this wasn't a big factor BC they were scoring on pp and making teams pay for it giving the crowd something cheer about. Plus I miss the rypper crowd was so hyped up when he dropped em

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Rypper ain't comin back, y'know, BC of whut happened last summer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we're not fast enough to transition. we lose our puck too much at the bline to play possession.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transition. There have been countless times that I've heard announcers say how we move the puck so quickly from one end to the other. Great first passes from d-men as well as rushing defenders like Bieksa and Ballard also help.

I will add this: Last year we we're more of a transition team than this year.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.